"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

Libs back then probably wanted to keep the church out of government and get rid of slavery, but it seems he was aware of a progression toward a more liberal society and people being "equally entitled to the protections of civil government"

Libs back then probably wanted to keep the church out of government and get rid of slavery, but it seems he was aware of a progression toward a more liberal society and people being "equally entitled to the protections of civil government"

this is the man, afterall, who is called the "father of our country"

LOL I like how you left out the "worthy members of the community" problem is alot of ppl arent worthy members of society...and please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

LOL I like how you left out the "worthy members of the community" problem is alot of ppl arent worthy members of society...and please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

left it out?

it's in my first post

here, I'll post the whole thing again just for you:

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

LOL you left it out in your 2nd post numb nut, you dont think thats an important part of his quote?

please tell me who you think in this day in age are denied protections from govt?

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

Basically the opposite of everything the Democrat party embodies. Not surprising that Straw Man is making a fool of himself again.

Props for trying to act like today's Democrat (or Republican for that matter) party is what Washington had in mind when he said that.

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others. As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited.[6] The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish it from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism.[7] Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government[8] and object to the welfare state[9]

Social Liberalism is more along the lines of what we call Liberalism today

Here is a comment from that link on Social Liberalism

"social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[26] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[9] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[27] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[28]"

And more from the Social Liberalism wiki page:

Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.[1][2]

Social liberalism replaced classical liberalism as the dominant ideology in much of the world, from the late nineteenth century onwards, although there was a resurgence of classical liberal ideology in the late 20th century.[3] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[4][5] or centre-left[6][7][8].

Social liberalism is also called new liberalism[nb 1][9] (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism,[10] welfare liberalism,[11] high liberalism,[12] radical liberalism,[13] modern liberalism,[14] revisionist liberalism,[15] left-liberalism,[16] or simply liberalism.

Social Liberalism is more along the lines of what we call Liberalism today

Here is a comment from that link on Social Liberalism

"social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[26] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[9] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law."[27] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[28]"

And more from the Social Liberalism wiki page:

Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty.[1][2]

Social liberalism replaced classical liberalism as the dominant ideology in much of the world, from the late nineteenth century onwards, although there was a resurgence of classical liberal ideology in the late 20th century.[3] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[4][5] or centre-left[6][7][8].

Social liberalism is also called new liberalism[nb 1][9] (as it was originally termed), contemporary liberalism,[10] welfare liberalism,[11] high liberalism,[12] radical liberalism,[13] modern liberalism,[14] revisionist liberalism,[15] left-liberalism,[16] or simply liberalism.

when did I bring up "social liberalism" and how about providing us some links to what Washingtong thought about liberalism meant rather than Wiki links (written by ?) about "classic liberalism" and then attempting to conflate that with whatever it was Washington was talking about.

when did I bring up "social liberalism" and how about providing us some links to what Washingtong thought about liberalism meant rather than Wiki links (written by ?) about "classic liberalism" and then attempting to conflate that with whatever it was Washington was talking about.

LOL melt much?

how about you seeing as you were the one who posted the quote

you ASSumed he was aware of a progression to a more liberal society but you have no proof? where are your links as to what washington was talking to?

you ASSumed he was aware of a progression to a more liberal society but you have no proof? where are your links as to what washington was talking to?

"melt"

LOL - that's hilarious coming from you,the person who feels compelled to write in CAPS and use 25 exclamation points

why don't you use that big brain of your and scroll back to the top of this thread and look at what I said in response to Ozmo's question about the definition of liberal.

did I make any definititive statement about what it was or was not?

was my speculation in any way inconsistemt with some of the things listed as classical liberalism such as human rationality, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, etc...

Is it possible for you to have a conversaion without immediately flying off the handle with your preconceived prejudices

I don't really have a definition of a liberal but I think you can define certain beliefs as being supported by liberals or conservative (as a general rule but not an exclusive rule).

for example, I would say most liberals are against torture (this doesn not mean that all conservatives are for torture or that you can't be conservative and also be against torture)

would you agree with that one statement

LOL that isnt a belief...the belief would be that in general conservatives are for doing anything and everything that might need to be done to protect the US and its ppl...liberals in general are not...certain interrogation techniques would be the example of that...

and I dont know I havent polled or seen a poll but I would be in favor of doing anything and everything possible to protect the US and its ppl...how about you?

Since there is no Liberal Party there is no codified definition of Liberal and the common assumption is the fuzzy pejorative version of the far right.

What did Washington believe liberalism as? And how does that compare to today's definition or definitions? (as the title of the thread indirectly provides one as "filthy") If there are so many definitions and you cannot provide one, then Washington's statement is moot for the purposes of the point you are making.

Because if you can't compare or link liberalism as its defined today with how liberalism was defined by Washington then.........